Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8354 (BOM)

DNYANESHWAR @ NANA MADHUKAR RATHOD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLN/571/2024 · 2025-07-10

Shri N B Suryawanshi, Shri Sandipkumar C More

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

{1} 914.1-appln-571-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 571 OF 2024 IN APEAL/116/2024 Dnyaneshwar @ Nana Madhukar Rathod .....Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another .....Respondent ….. Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. R.G. Dodiya i/b. Mr. Vishal Chavan and Mr. Devang Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant Mr. S.R. Wakale, APP for State Mr. P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for respondent No. 2 ....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. DATE : 10th JULY, 2025 ORDER : 1. By this application, applicant seeks suspension of his substantive sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 67 of 2016, for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution, applicant on account of previous dispute assaulted deceased with Gupti/knife on 13.05.2015 in a meeting of villagers called to settle the earlier dispute. Bhagyawant Punde 2025:BHC-AUG:17831-DB {2} 914.1-appln-571-2024 3. With the assistance of learned Senior Advocate for applicant, learned APP for State and learned advocate for the informant, we have perused the record. 4. There is evidence of eye witnesses i.e. PW3, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 showing involvement of the applicant in killing deceased Vinod with the help of Gupti/knife. The weapon used in the crime is recovered from the applicant. 5. Though, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant contended that muddemal articles were sent to chemical analyzer after one month and chemical analyzer’s report is inconclusive to the extent of clothes of accused, we are not impressed by the said submission. 6. Taking into consideration the direct ocular evidence showing involvement of the applicant in killing deceased Vinod, and the fact that applicant was not on bail during the trial, according to us this is not a fit case to suspend the substantive sentence of the applicant. The application is therefore rejected. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde